Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion & Politics' started by Dr. Rice, Dec 6, 2012.
I think it is going to happen somewhere in the next 48-72 hours. What do you think?
But why? What profit is there to be made?
Anyway I predict Canada might sit this one out. You Americunts are on your own to be once again frowned upon for invading another Middle-Eastern country once again.
What's in it for us if we invade and install a new government? I've read that we and Al Quaida are on the same side(with the rebels) where the unrest in Syria is concerned.
It would be best to just keep empowering the weaker side(whichever it is at that moment) with weapons and bullets so that they may depopulate the region. The fewer sand niggers there are in the world, the better. If we don't have to expend lives and even more money to do it ourselves, and let them keep killing each other, then I'd say we win even bigger in the end. It would make invasion so much easier. If you understood the conditions the Byzantines and the Sassanids were under after their last war, and how that put them at the mercy of Islamic conquest, you'd know that this is an excellent tactic.
Besides for the weapons munitions companies? Also not everything is about making money. Sometimes it is about politics that involve Jews and their enemies.
Entering the war late again I see. Very typical for Americans getting involved in conflict
Shits gonna get interestin' in Syria.
And by interesting i mean "Pants shittingly terrifying."
"Soldiers' dances lead us to the Syrian War!"
First Von Thronstahl album i got.
What we did in WWII was smart. We punished aggressor nations(axis) with embargoes at the onset of the war and empowered the Britons(and the Soviets, they couldn't get through the conflict with Germany without that $11b) with the Lend-Lease Agreement so that they may continue their bombing campaigns in Germany for the next six months until we officially declared war - all during a time when the demos was completely opposed to the war. When we finally did enter the war, all sides, especially the Germans, were thoroughly weakened, allowing the winners(US and the Soviet Union) to carve up their own parts of the world and control their destinies for the next fifty years - which is forever in the modern era. The Britons could only glare in envy of our unhindered accomplishment and new economic empire - one that completely overshadowed the territorial empire they had fifty years prior.
Long live the American Empire, and death to the sand niggers!
You also entered late in WW1 and refused to join the LON during both wars.
And just like 'evil' Axis powers, you ended up fighting against Russia anyway when you were supposed to be allies.
Your involvement in European and Middle Eastern conflicts is little else than an intrusion of shit that does not concern you.
Though I like the idea of letting the camel jockies quarrel amongst themselves while showing favoritism to one side before invasion. Sounds practical and resourcefully adequate. But it's a tactic that's too slow and ineffective to be used in an emergency situation; the opposing government being in possession of chemical weapons with the will to use it. Swift aggression and immediate action must be taken to avert such a mass crisis.
We had a naval war with Germany, who were attacking our munitions supply to Britain - munitions they were buying from us. The Zimmerman note was the final straw. I think our intrusions in the European wars were justified, considering we were provoked in all of them. Notice how the wars were shortly ended when we got involved? The Europeans can thank our great nation for saving them from drawing out the wars and depopulating each other far worse than we ever depopulated them.
Also, the League of Nations was powerless and for show, much more so than the UN today. We're proud of dodging that bullet.
Sure. The US's intervention in both world wars were noble causes in that they strove to bring the wars to a swift end. War is after all, a means to an end.
But not like your military presence in occupied regions where the engagements are prolonged and contracts are signed to make it last even longer. But it probably won't be like that with Syria..
Eh.. I predict this is just going to be another Libya crisis with a little Hussein twist at the end of it.
It's not intervention when we're attacked. Instead, it's retaliation. There was no noble cause in either of those wars, especially the first one, when you consider that it was just the alliance system(built by marriage of the monarchs) in Europe exploding.
We're not extending our conflicts in the middle east for the sole purpose of feeding our military industrial complex, but for the purpose of continually wiping out reoccuring adhesive forces which keep these sand niggers from butchering each other. Saddam kept the piece in Iraq. That was not cool. The sand nigger tribes(which include The Member Formerly Known As Baya's) are supposed to cleanse themselves off the map via ethnic genocide. After nearly ten years of heavy involvement in destabilizing the Middle East, we're convinced that we've created a lasting chaos that will drive the sand niggers to extinction in the next fifty years. That's all the reason to deescalate our activities there. There is little reason to poke our heads into their affairs in the future, aside from checking up on if they're still killing each other or not. The upcoming genocides(that the sand niggers will do to themselves, seeing as it's tribe v tribe over there) will make great news fodder. We still win hard.